During their first week, Bitcoin exchange-traded funds (ETFs) in Hong Kong have gathered $230 million in assets under management (AUM). As per the data from the Hong Kong Stock Exchange, the combined AUM of virtual asset spot ETFs, encompassing Bitcoin and Ethereum, stands at $273 million, surpassing the AUM of virtual asset futures ETFs by almost 80%, which amounts to $152 million.
Bitcoin ETF AUM by Issuers
Following their debut, China Asset Management Co. (China AMC) emerged as top performers in the ETF landscape, amassing $116 million for Bitcoin and $19 million for Ethereum. Meanwhile, Bosera International and HashKey Capital’s Bitcoin ETF secured $57 million AUM, with $11.6 million for Ethereum ETF. Similarly, Harvest Global Investment’s Bitcoin ETF and Ethereum ETF garnered approximately $57 million and $11.5 million respectively. In total, the trio of spot Bitcoin ETFs amassed $230 million in AUM, while the three Ethereum ETFs gathered around $43 million.
Sui Chung, CEO of CF Benchmarks, a Kraken subsidiary, projected a promising future for crypto ETFs in Hong Kong. Despite a relatively sluggish start, Chung anticipates these ETFs to surge past $1 billion in assets under management by the conclusion of 2024.
Preferred Taxes and Regulation for Hong Kong ETFs: BitGo
Hobeng “HB” Lim, BitGo’s Managing Director for the Asia-Pacific region, shared his perspectives on the Hong Kong ETF landscape, highlighting that certain investors may favor Hong Kong’s offerings over similar products in the US or Europe.
“Some investors may opt against trading spot crypto ETFs listed in North America or Europe due to reasons such as less favorable taxes or regulatory restrictions imposed by their home country regulator,” Lim explained.
He further emphasized, “The Hong Kong spot crypto ETFs present an alternative for such investors who perceive Hong Kong as offering more advantageous tax policies and regulatory accessibility.”
Lim acknowledged Hong Kong’s establishment of a highly comprehensive and robust regulatory framework for virtual assets. However, he also identified areas for improvement.
He suggested the necessity of a regulatory framework for independent virtual asset custodians to provide additional custody options, along with adjustments to Hong Kong’s proposed regulations concerning over-the-counter (OTC) trading of virtual assets.
